RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES

Transcription

1 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES OCT APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 1. Two Article 1s, imposed on 1 January 1997 and 1 April 1997, be declared void and removed from his records He be reinstated to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). He and his spouse receive a join-spouse assignment. 4. The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), for the period 27 August 1996 through 13 May 1997, be declared void and removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A woman, not associated with the military in any way, falsely accused him of a consensual sexual relationship with her for a three week period. This was a deliberate attack against his career in the Air Force. Applicant states that this woman was on probation in 7 for fraudwith regard to the contested EPR, applicant contends that his first sergeant and commander I. feedback. statement on the EPR regarding his midpoint In support of his appeal, applicant submits four EPRs for the periods closing 26 August 1993 through 26 August 1996, two Air Force Achievement Medal certificates, an Air Force Commendation Medal certificate and,.newspaper articles. Applicant's submission is attached at A.

2 STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 May 199 for a period of four years in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6). On 26 December 1996, while serving in the grade of master sergeant, applicant was served with nonjudicial punishment proceedings under Article 1, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by his Squadron Section Commander. The allegations.were: Specification 1: Applicant did, within the state of Ildp, on or about 31 October 1996, contribute to the delinquency of a female under eighteen years of olic beverages, in violation of 2: Applicant, a married man, on divers occasions from abo er 1996, wrongfully have sexual intercourse with, - a woman not his wife. The applicant, after consulting his defense counsel, waived his right to demand trial by courtmartial and accepted nonjudicial proceedings under Article 1, UCMJ and elected to submit a written presentation. On 1 January 1997, the Squadron Section Commander considered the matters presented by the applicant and found that he did not commit the offense of Specification 1, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. However, the commander found that applicant did commit the offense of adultery in Specification 2 of the Article 1. On 1 January 1997, the applicant's commander imposed the punishment which consisted of reduction to the grade of technical sergeant and forfeiture of $97.4 pay per month for two months. The forfeiture was suspended until 14 July Applicant indicated he did not wish to appeal. The Squadron Section Commander served the applicant his second The allegation was: Applicant did, on or about 27 December 1996, with official statement that he stayed in November 1996, which statement was totally false, and was then known by applicant to be so false. The applicant, after consulting his defense counsel, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and elected to make a written presentation. On 1 April 1997, the commander found that the applicant did commit the offense alleged and imposed punishment which consisted of reduction to the grade of staff sergeant and 30 days' extra duty. The applicant appealed and the appeal was denied on 21 April Applicant received a referral EPR for the period 27 August 1996 through 13 May In his appeal, he does not submit information or support from the rating chain officials of the contested report. 2

3 Applicant's EPR profile is as follows: PERIOD ENDING 26 Aug Aug Aug 9 26 Aug 96 * 13 May May 98 * Contested report OVERALL EVALUATION 2 (Referral report) AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, Air Force Legal Services Agency, AFLSA/JAJM, states that the applicant has not offered any new evidence to support his position that he was falsely accused with regard to the allegation of adultery in the 1 January 1997 Article 1. That issue was considered during the Article 1 process and was resolved against him. Nor has the applicant submitted any evidence or argument as to why his 1 April 1997 Article 1, for making a false official statement, should be set aside. In fact the applicant admitted to his commander and the Inspector General (IG) that he made the false statement. Based on the facts available, the applicant's nonjudicial punishment action was properly accomplished and he was afforded all the rights granted by statute. There are no legal errors requiring corrective action regarding the nonjudicial punishments. They recommend applicant's request to reinstate him to the rank of master sergeant be denied. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at C. The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that they defer to the recommendation of AFLSA/JAJM. However, should the AFBCMR grant the applicant's request, his former effective date and date of rank for master sergeant was 1 June A copy of this Air Force evaluation is attached at D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in summary, that he is providing information to prove that the two Article 1s received were unjust and the commander made his decision based solely on a travel itinerary that was provided in a written presentation put together by his Area Defense Counsel on 8 January This information was not 3

4 provided to deceive the commander on any allegations. The allegation of adultery wasn't true then and isn't true today. Applicant had submitted three responses, dated 8 January, 1 March and 30 April Copies of the applicant's responses, with attachments, are attached at s F, G and H. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION The Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), AF CONUS Assignment Procedures, Directorate of Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPAPPl, states that on 19 Septe licant was selected for a join spouse assignment to This assignment was canceled on 22 May 1997 due to his demotion to the grade of staff sergeant and referral EPR. Applicant's spouse ved a special duty assignment to in June They have no record with ng for a join spouse assignment to, since he was reduced in rank and received a referral EPR, at the time of such application, he may not have been eligible to apply. Also due to the reduction in rank, he now does not have required retainability for a join spouse assignment. A complete copy of this evaluation is attached at I. The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states, with regard to the contested EPR, that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain--not only for support, but for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any support from the rating chain of the contested EPR. The burden of proof is on the applicant. He has failed to substantiate his contention that the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all of the evaluators, or that he was excessively punished. Based on the lack of evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request. A complete copy of this Air Force evaluation is attached at J. 4

5 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant submitted a response to the additional Air Force evaluations and attached a copy of a Security Police investigation. Applicant's response, with attachments, is attached at L. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted a11 remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the two Article 1s, imposed on 1 January 1997 and 1 April 1997, should be declared void and removed from his records; that he be reinstated to the grade of master sergeant; that he and his spouse receive a join spouse assignment; or, that the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), for the period closing 13 May 1997, be declared void and removed from his records. His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force. We believe applicant's contentions have been adequately addressed by the Air Force and we therefore agree with their recommendations and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not have materially added to that understanding. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal

6 ~ -. appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 September 1998, under the provisions of AFI Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 97, w/atchs. Applicantis Master Personnel Records. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 29 Oct 97. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Nov Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 97. Applicantis Letter, dated 8 Jan 98, w/atchs. Applicantis Letter, dated 1 Mar 98, w/atch. Applicant's Letter, dated 30 Apr 98, w/atchs. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPPl, dated Jun 98. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 17 Jun 98. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 89. Applicant I s Letter, dated7 Jul 98y/atchs. Pa el Chair 6